Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Mcnamee, Kathleen

  • Google
  • 1
  • 8
  • 14

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2011Impact evaluation of a youth sexually transmissible infection awareness campaign using routinely collected data sources14citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Spelman, Tim
1 / 1 shared
Clift, Philip
1 / 1 shared
Hellard, Margaret
1 / 2 shared
Goller, Jane L.
1 / 1 shared
Hocking, Jane
1 / 1 shared
Lim, Megan S. C.
1 / 1 shared
Gold, Judy
1 / 1 shared
Guy, Rebecca
1 / 11 shared
Chart of publication period
2011

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Spelman, Tim
  • Clift, Philip
  • Hellard, Margaret
  • Goller, Jane L.
  • Hocking, Jane
  • Lim, Megan S. C.
  • Gold, Judy
  • Guy, Rebecca
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Impact evaluation of a youth sexually transmissible infection awareness campaign using routinely collected data sources

  • Spelman, Tim
  • Clift, Philip
  • Mcnamee, Kathleen
  • Hellard, Margaret
  • Goller, Jane L.
  • Hocking, Jane
  • Lim, Megan S. C.
  • Gold, Judy
  • Guy, Rebecca
Abstract

<p>Background: Young people are at high risk of sexually transmissible infections (STI) and notifications of chlamydia are rising rapidly. In 2007, a Victorian multimedia campaign aimed to increase STI testing and condom use among 18-25-year-olds. We conducted a retrospective impact evaluation using multiple sources of routinely collected data. Methods: Population-level chlamydia testing data from general practice, chlamydia testing data from five government primary care clinics with a high caseload of young people, and behavioural data from an annual youth behavioural survey were analysed. Analyses included time-series regression to assess trends in testing levels, Kruskal-Wallis tests to assess changes in positivity, and χ<sup>2</sup>-tests to assess knowledge and behaviour change. Results: There was no significant difference in the slope of monthly chlamydia testing in population-level or clinic-based surveillance during the campaign compared with before or after the campaign, and no changes in chlamydia positivity. Between 2007 and 2008, there was a significant increase in STI knowledge among females (P &lt; 0.01) and in the proportion of females reporting always using a condom with casual (P = 0.04) and new sexual partners (P &lt; 0.01) in the annual behavioural survey. Conclusions: Our findings suggest the campaign had no impact on STI testing but may have contributed to an increase in knowledge and condom use among females; however, this increase could not be directly attributed to the campaign. Future campaigns targeting young people for STI testing should consider alternative messages and approaches, and include robust evaluation mechanisms to measure campaign impact prospectively.</p>

Topics